Talk:Tea tree oil/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Summary, weasel words about medical usage.

Summary: I've made several changes to the medical information to better reflect the citations. I have no idea why it was roll backed 'wholesale' instead of editted.

Tea tree oil is used in traditional medicine, this is the basis for it even having a medical section and what makes tea tree oil most notable. This should be included in the summary.

The mention of lice in the summary is not appropriate, there are many 'supposed' usages, about 15 or so in the source. Picking just lice to include summary is arbitrary. Cherry picking 1 detailed information to put in the summary should not be done unless it is the dominant detail pertaining to the subject.

The cited article states it is 'possibly effective' for 2 application, and cites 'insufficient evidence' not 'little evidence' for others. The prior phrase seems to cast tree tea oil as dubious, where as the medical community recognizes that a few usages have been shown possibly effective, where as the others need more researched.

Medical Subject:

The source referred to by the phrase "Despite its proponents.. it is not recommended for...", does not match its source. The 'proponent source' is not recommending people use it medically for these conditions. It state that there have been a studies that show it was effective.

The phrasing is not NPOV, and seems to try casting Tea tree oil as quackery, instead of presenting it of limited medical use with other uses requiring more research, which is the opinion of the present source.

This is my first post on this particular article and I'm hoping to fix the NPOV and weasel word problem. If someone chooses to revert again, please explain and so we can have a discussion here to work towards consensus or a form of arbitration.

Gsonnenf (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with this work. Be sure to read WP:MEDRS. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:47, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I see you didn't take my advice. Please don't revert again, instead, suggest what you want to do here, and we can discuss it sensibly. Your changes will not stand up to scrutiny I'm afraid. Please think about it. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Roxy, I am extremely familiar with WP:MEDRS and such other wiki guidelines. My edits are intended to bring the article within wiki guidelines. I have successfully brought edits on medical articles through discussion and RFCs. I have presented a discussion about my edits at the start of this section. I have been asking for discussion on my edits and have full confidence they will stand up to scrutiny. So far there have been only rollbacks with no discussion which is inappropriate. Gsonnenf (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I have now mentioned the "promising" applications in the lede, added eczma to the list of things it isn't well-evidenced for treating, and added some stuff on MRSA (see below). I'm not seeing what the issue is here. There are obviously claims "out there" (as the ACS say) that TTO is some kind of natural cure-all, yet the research shows a lack of evidence for most of these claims and there are recommendations against ingestion or using it on children. We report these things from reliable sources. What's the problem? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that some of the claims are 'out there'. I think the changed summary is an improvement. I think its important to state and clearly communicate what evidence based medicine has found. We should avoid terms that are not found in the citations (scant evidence vs. insufficient evidence). Insufficient evidence would direct reflect article's authors intentions in this case. Also the passive 'has been claimed' is uninformative about who makes such claims. The article should state that practitioners of traditional medicine make such claims (sourced if necessary). Most of all, the article should reflect a neutral informative tone about the current state of tea tree oil in evidence based medicine rather than that of a persuasive essay designed to debunk claims of alternative medicine practitioners.Gsonnenf (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We should faithfully paraphrase the sources we used to avoid WP:PLAGIARISM (talking of which I have excised some portions here which were just copy-pasted from an unattributed article). We don't know who the proponents are that claim the manifold benefits of TTO (ACS says just "proponents"), though we do know it's herbalists apparently making the claims about immune system boosting ... we could mention that, sure. WP:FRINGE means we need to juxtapose unverified medical claims with the mainstream view, and if that has the appearance of debunking then so be it: neutral articles often appear that way when dealing with such topics. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:30, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

We should certainly avoid WP:PLAGIARISM. Using a specific meaningful term such as insufficient evidence, where the author uses such term is not plagiarism. Also we have a small amount of flexibility in WP:FAIRUSE in using a short phrase or text fragment from an author (provided its not an 'Excessively long copyrighted excerpts.'). Also, I think we can do better than a tertiary source that just says 'proponents say'. I don't find that particular article by the ACS to be as authoritative as a peer reviewed journal. Gsonnenf (talk) 08:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Also i noticed Alexbrn removed the usages of TTO that the NIH deemed possibly effective in the medical body. This doesn't appear to be a balanced approach presentation of the current medical consensus.Gsonnenf (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, on re-reading the sources and seeing ACS state "despite years of use, available clinical evidence does not support the effectiveness of tea tree oil for treating skin problems and infections in humans", our mentioning its "possible" effectiveness seemed non-neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

While both the ACS and MedLine/NIH articles are tertiary sources, the source from NIH is far more current than the ACS one and reflects recent studies and it should take priority. Gsonnenf (talk) 09:33, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They don't contradict one another. MedlinePlus says "possible". ACS says "evidence doesn't support". Cochrane are preparing a systematic review at the moment; when that appears it will be a good source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:40, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They obviously do contradict each other in the section you sited. ACS 2008 states " Despite years of use, available clinical evidence does not support the effectiveness of tea tree oil for treating skin problems and infections in humans." Whereas NIH 2012 states it is effective in treating Acne and Athletes foot as there OTC counterparts (5% benzoyl peroxide and tolnaftate 1% cream) respectively.Gsonnenf (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

No, MLP calls it "possibly effective" for the conditions you cite, which is two positions away from "effective" on their rating scale (it's not even "likely effective"). Eliding that difference would significantly misrepresent the source. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 10:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The MLP clear states "Topical application of a 10% tea tree oil cream works about as well as tolnaftate 1% cream (Genaspor, Tinactin, Ting, and others) for relieving symptoms of athlete’s foot, including scaling, inflammation, itching, and burning." and "Applying a 5% tea tree oil gel appears to be as effective as 5% benzoyl peroxide (Oxy-5, Benzac AC, and others) for treating acne."Gsonnenf (talk) 20:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

right - that is them relaying the evidence that has led them to categorize it as "possibly effective", (not "effective"). The conclusion we present must be same as that of the source. What you've done is inserted the word "effective" (not in the source) and cherry-picked the evidence by leaving out the unfavourable comparisons with existing treatments. That is not neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

LD50

Teapeat (talk · contribs) has re-included this content:

Tea tree oil can be toxic when swallowed. In rats the LD50 is 1.9-2.4 ml/kg.[11]

A few problems here: (1) there's an implication general toxicity can be stated from toxicity in rats (maybe so, but this is WP:SYN), (2) it's a primary source, and (33) since we have well-sourced mention of toxicity already in the article, why mention this rat figure, expecially as the first thing in the safety section? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no such implication. It's perfectly normal to have LD50s in articles. This is an encyclopedia, it's supposed to contain information, not Alexbrn's personal healthy hints about what humans are or are not to use.

The concept of simple 'toxicity' is, to put it bluntly, a load of old crap. What makes something toxic, or not, is how much of it is taken or absorbed. Ethanol is toxic. Water is toxic. Everything is toxic in sufficient quantities.

Look, to the maximal extent, this is an academic-based encyclopedia. If you can't handle that, I suggest you go away. Most of the sources you're trying to force into the article as sources are not academic sources.Teapeat (talk) 14:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

And you appear to have a complete inability to know what a secondary source is! A "Clinical Microbiological Reviews: Melaleuca alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil: a Review of Antimicrobial and Other Medicinal Properties" is a classic secondary source. The ACS article you love so much is a tertiary source!!!

Seriously, if you don't even know what a secondary source is, why are you here?Teapeat (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies - I assumed it was a primary for the LD50 without checking. However, the other points stand. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(Add) Also, per WP:MEDMOS we should be writing for the general reader and avoiding technical terms like "LD50". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the running order and removed the tautology before seeing this. The LD50 stuff seems redundant to me. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 15:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I can only emphasise that the concept of 'toxicity' is an extremely bad one. Alcohol has an LD50 that is only a few times that of tea tree oil. The idea that tea tree oil is 'toxic' but alcohol is considered 'a drink' is fair enough due to alcohols overall effects, but it's not very scientific. Lead is toxic, but a gram of lead would kill you, but a gram of tea tree oil clearly wouldn't. I mean the literature has a person drinking a cupful of the stuff, and recovering without any apparent harm, although they were pretty sick.

It's toxic, but not very toxic. Orally, it's only a bit more toxic than alcohol.Teapeat (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The LD50 is encyclopedic knowledge and should be included.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

The following is a quote from the LD 50 page ..

As a measure of toxicity, LD50 is somewhat unreliable and results may vary greatly between testing facilities due to factors such as the genetic characteristics of the sample population, animal species tested, environmental factors and mode of administration.[5]

There can be wide variability between species as well; what is relatively safe for rats may very well be extremely toxic for humans, and vice versa. For example, chocolate, harmless to humans, is known to be toxic to many animals. When used to test venom from venomous creatures, such as snakes, LD50 results may be misleading due to the physiological differences between mice, rats, and humans. Many venomous snakes are specialized predators on mice, and their venom may be adapted specifically to incapacitate mice; and mongooses may be exceptionally resistant. While most mammals have a very similar physiology, LD50 results may or may not be directly relevant to humans.

A low LD50 in animals may still be a cause for concern for humans, and a high animal value does not guarantee that a substance is similarly harmful to humans.

I searched for the LD 50 figure on the following pages ... water Aloe Vera Sodium Hydroxide Ethanol Talc Salt petrol laetrile and cyanide. Not very scientific I know, but a reasonable selection. A figure was only quoted on the petrol page. I suggest removing it. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There you go then, it's on the petrol page. Are you calling for its removal as well? What happens if a vet gets an animal poisoning incident. They'll google it and find it in the article and they can trace it back to the reference, and animal poisonings have happened. This is entirely relevant information; the rat is the model organism used for lots of toxicity work. It's entirely on topic; Wikipedia is a reference work, that's what Wikipedia is for.Teapeat (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If a vet googles it, they'll get a page full of suggestions on what to do. The wiki page will be nowhere to be seen. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 22:32, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of 'toxicity'; I noticed in the EU scientific 'opinion' they were really, really interested in TTO being an estrogen mimic in vitro tests, and the three boys that apparently (temporarily) grew boobs.

However, when they looked into it, they identified the estrogen fractions and discovered they weren't absorbed through the skin anyway; so it's mostly a non issue. All bets are off if you swallow it, but even then it should be metabolised away. And that's going to be why TTO is still on the market; if it was a significant estrogen mimic it should and would have been banned.

Ah... the ACS page hasn't been updated since Nov 2008; that explains it; they couldn't have read the EU's scientific opinion which was published in Dec 2008, so ACS is out of date on this.Teapeat (talk) 22:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. The ACS article seems to be an out of date mediocre quality tertiary source. I'd support removing its recommendations in favor of more current, more authoritive, or higher quality sources.Gsonnenf (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresenation of MRSA material?

Gsonnenf (talk · contribs) has sourced this text about TTO and MRSA

Studies have shown that it demonstrated similar rates of eradication when compared to treatment with mupirocin.

to this article (singular) which states:

Compared with mupirocin Tea tree oil cream plus tea tree oil body wash may be less effective than mupirocin nasal ointment plus chlorhexidine skin cleanser plus silver sulfadiazine cream at eradicating MRSA nasal colonisation at 14 days, but not in eradicating MRSA colonisation from all sites. We don't know whether tea tree oil nasal ointment plus tea tree oil body wash is more effective than mupirocin nasal ointment plus triclosan body wash at eradicating MRSA colonisation at any body site (very low-quality evidence).

That doesn't look like a fair representation. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 22:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That statement is for nasal ointment which I agree is clearly less effective. I would certainly support putting an exception for nasal ointment in the statement. The comparison for general body sites is as follows:

It found that tea tree oil was significantly less effective in eradication of nasal colonization ... However, it found no significant difference between tea tree oil compared with mupirocin in eradication of MRSA from all sites 14 days after treatment (eradication from nose, throat, axillae, groin, and skin lesions : 46/110 [42%] with tea tree oil v 56/114 [49%] with mupirocin nasal ointment; P ~ 0.286 ).

Flaxman 2005 also came to the conclusion they are similar.Gsonnenf (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting the conclusion from both the trials (the paragraph at the head of the section). You have cherry-picked the description of one RCT (omitting what the source itself chose to state first, about "significantly less effective") and then editorially broadened this into "studies have shown". This presents a POV that differs from that of the source. Furthermore you have substituted the very caveated language of the source ("may be", "we don't know") with a bold assertion that "studies have shown". Can't you see why this is problematic? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Your entire cited conclusion refers to nasal ointment ". We don't know whether tea tree oil nasal ointment plus tea tree oil body wash...".Gsonnenf (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Your entire cited conclusion refers to nasal ointment" - No, as you can read it refers to "cream" and "body wash" in the first part of the conclusion, the ointment in the second half. You are making Wikipedia, in its own voice, draw a different conclusion to the source using a cherry-picked description of one trial, which is a problem. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:30, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The first half refers specifically to MRSA nasal colonisation. We already discussed this and i said, yes put an exception for nasal colonization which you ignored then pointed to the second half. The second half is about effectiveness of nasal ointment, now you point to the first half again. You are going in circles. Please read the benefits section of the paper. The benefits section AND Flaxman 2005 both came to the conclusion I posted.Gsonnenf (talk) 03:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

AN/I

FYI, Teapeat (talk · contribs) has started a thread relating to this article at WP:AN/I. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources

It seems that Alexbrn is deliberately biasing the lead in particular and the article in general. He's repeatedly edit warring away referenced material, adding weasel words, basing material on out of date studies, unreliable sources (a pedicurist association for safety information?), deleting reliable sourced material; apparently to suit his own OR and whims.

I don't think he's going to start editing responsibly.

As it stands I'm completely fed up with this. What do other people think, should we take him to ANI and get him topic blocked or do an RFC? I'm leading towards ANI, his editing is among the worst I've ever seen for raw bias.Teapeat (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Au contraire. You managed to bring a report by an EU committee into the article (a usable source), completely ignore its conclusion and cherry-pick the one item out of it that dismissed a safety concern. The report's authors didn't see fit to include this factoid in their own conclusion so it is of questionable note anyway, let alone to put this in the lead as our principal representation of the report which is, in fact, extremely cautious in its approach to TTO: a fact which is now evident as I have included some material from the report's conclusion here. It would be completely non-neutral to try and represent the report's findings in a different way to how it does this itself. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(add) Furthermore you keep removing content from the National Pediculosis Association with the bogus claim that it is not reliably sourced, when it obviously is. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(add) And, err, you might want to look "pediculosis" up in the dictionary and then contrast it with "pedicurist". (If you've got those words mixed up I can see why you think my editing is odd!) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It does appear that Alexbrn is following the sources accurately. It isn't clear to me why Teapeat objects to this. To suggest blocking, RFC or ANI is risible. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 16:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? Please explain how the introduction completely and pointedly fails to mention any of the uses for which tea tree oil compares well with standard treatments, while using deliberate weasel words: "there is insufficient evidence of its effectiveness for many of these claimed uses".

Many? What about the ones that there is good evidence for, like acne? But that's OK, alexbrn systematically deleted all those from the lead, I can only presume he did that to make tea tree oil look scary.

How is this supposed to be an unbiased summary of the article?

I mean, if you read the EU scientific analysis, they even had evidence about reproductive safety, like is it safe for pregnant women? Obviously they can't give it to pregnant women, but the rat-dose for which there was no evidence of issues was equivalent for human bodyweight to being over a gram per day; which is a huge amount.

And that's pregnant women! I mean no one at all is recommending it for pregnant women, but the scientific evidence is that for any normal use it's pretty safe.

And note that Alexbrn added: that some oil constituents may be absorbed by the skin, leading to "considerable systemic exposure" in the safety section. That wasn't actually the conclusion, if you actually read the whole paragraph this came from, it specifically applied to a case where a user might essentially drench their body in lotion and treat their feet, and even then they said they didn't have good enough data on the absorption. And even then, again, there were no safety conclusions from that dose!

For example the GP thing is a single sentence by a GP in an article in a magazine, and alexbrn is using this as being more reliable than the EU scientific committee, more reliable than all other primary and secondary sources. This has been deleted from the article and edit warred back in by alexbrn.

He's deliberately systematically cherry-picking scary-sounding phrases out of various sources, some reliable, some reasonably reliable, others totally unreliable, many out of date, and systematically in favour of later ones that are more reliable and in date.

In Wikipedia we don't pull this kind of shit. We show the unvarnished truth, and cite the best, most up-to-date sources.

Alexbrn has never, ever, ever done anything other than delete information that might show even the slightest positive property of tea tree oil and done anything other than edit war against anyone that tried to introduce it, even when this is based on good, reliable sources.

All that has happened where he has been forced to allow it to remain in the body of the article, he has used weasel words to systematically twist the introduction to hide any evidence of that from casual reader while lauding extremely marginal source. His approach is incredibly slanted.Teapeat (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A lot of this is simply untrue. There is nothing in the conclusion of the EU report that says their concerns "specifically apply" to a case of "drenching". The paragraph in question states:

Following topical application of Tea Tree Oil and Tea Tree Oil containing products, percutaneous absorption of some constituents may occur, leading to a considerable systemic exposure, especially from neat oil, body lotion and foot spray/powder (see appendix). Because of inadequate dermal absorption studies available, the magnitude of systemic exposure to Tea Tree Oil from cosmetic products is uncertain. Only worst case estimations for NOAELs for general systemic and reproductive toxicity can be made. A Margin of Safety has not been calculated and the safety of Tea Tree Oil cannot be assessed.

We now mention this in the article.

As to "positive" things about TTO, I have included these where warranted. Which isn't very often according to the sources, and certainly a lot less than you evidently think it is. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you see that little bit where it says "Because of inadequate dermal absorption studies available, the magnitude of systemic exposure to Tea Tree Oil from cosmetic products is uncertain.".

That says they don't know that there actually is a "considerable systemic exposure" whereas you wrote:

"Nevertheless, the committee concluded that some oil constituents are absorbed by the skin, leading to "considerable systemic exposure"!

You see the difference? One says it might cause a big exposure, the other says it definitely does cause exposure.

And note that the source doesn't actually say... and so it might cause toxicity. It doesn't even say that.

And you pull this kind of thing with every single edit; every edit vastly exaggerates theoretical dangers and completely removes any possible positives. For example the acne stuff, it's miraculously not in the lead. After you had edited the article it had completely disappeared.[1], and there was 'scant evidence' of it being useful for anything. Funny that!Teapeat (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to want to declare a financial interest or other interest in people not use tea tree oil by any chance???? You don't (for example) supply benzoyl peroxide? Or is it all just a big coincidence that every part of a website you quote, and every part of reliable sources you quote just happen to be only the negative bits, and are often are being taken out of context?

I don't wish to make accusations at all, but I'm sort of detecting a completely consistent pattern here.Teapeat (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct in that my "are absorbed" text didn't reflect the source very well, for which I apologise; this is why I changed it to "may be absorbed" in replacement text. The acne potential of TTO is maybe promising, but the sources are tentative. We shouldn't be bigging these claims up like they're a done deal in the lede, if there isn't the strong sourcing to back that. As to interests, I happily declare I have zero interests - financial or otherwise - in TTO or any rival or associated substance ... or indeed of any medical or quasi-medical device, substance or practice of any kind. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Look buster. You added something that said "this causes large systemic exposure" when the source actually didn't say that. When I complained you changed it to "this may cause large systemic exposure". The source doesn't, in context, even say that, you've taken it out of context. When I complain about this you bring up stuff about how 'promising' it is. I don't give a shit about that. I looked at what you wrote in the article, and first it's wrong, then it's still wrong, and now you're basically claiming that because it's 'promising' you can write almost anything.

Virtually every single single edit you make is like that. How much longer are we supposed to put up with this edit warring and your (what I can only suppose at this point) are deliberate distortions? Every single edit.

This article is not s health guide. It's an encyclopedia article about an industrially produced chemical oil. Wikipedia is not here to protect anyone from anything. It's a chemical. It has these following known chemical/biophysical properties (whatever they are). It's banned (wherever/if it is). It's related to these other chemicals etc. etc. You know, facts. Opinions (such and such don't think it should be used for this or that) may be facts as well, but they don't mean you get to remove the physical facts.

This garbage stops now.Teapeat (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

break

IN WHAT UNIVERSE IS THIS WEBSITE A RELIABLE SOURCE????: [2]

According to alexbrn who has revert warred it back in, it is a "this is pertintent, well-sourced health information".

Um.

No.

Note that alexbrn has revert warred it at least twice that I've counted, and I may have missed some: [3] [4].

It's not a reliable source, in Wikipedia we use secondary sources. That is some .org website of some organisation with no evidence whatever of editorial and academic reliability. It doesn't get Wikipedia's stamp of being a reliable source. It's not even a tertiary source.Teapeat (talk) 17:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

An independent medical/scientific organizations dedicated to pediculosis is going to be a good source for information on pediculosis per WP:MEDRS (you've realized this isn't foot care, right?). It is obviously reliable since the organization can be assumed to be capable of reliably stating its own view. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:19, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I have returned the article to reflect the sources accurately. Teapeat, you really need to calm down and examine Alex's work dispassionately before making any more changes. It might be a good idea to propose changes here first in future, as what you have done recently wont wash. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 17:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

No, YOU need to stop edit warring back in completely unreliably sourced material back into this article.

How is http://www.headlice.org/faq/treatments/alternatives.htm headlice.org a reliable source?

Is it published? NO!

Is it reliable? NO!

Is it a medical body? NO!

Has it been peer reviewed? PROBABLY NOT, WHO EVEN KNOWS?!

Do we have ANY reason to think it meets the criteria for a WP:RELIABLE source in Wikipedia for health or academic accuracy? NO!

If it changed would we know it has changed? Is there even version control? NO!

ABSOLUTELY WE DO NOT!!!

This isn't even in the ballpark, you can't see the ballpark.

I don't give a damn whether it's a pelicurist or a pedicurist, it has no bearing on safety AT ALL! It shouldn't even be in the article; not even in the external links section!

The fact that you clowns keep edit warring it back in says everything I need to know.

Where does it say on WP:MEDRS that websites like this are reliable sources for medical safety? I genuinely can't find it; BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE.Teapeat (talk) 19:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

sources

I looked in the Cochrane library for research on this, I found only three articles that I could get and looked useful:

• PMID 15078424 - Herbal medicines for treatment of fungal infections: a systematic review of controlled clinical trials - 2004 - Conclusions: "There were few controlled clinical trials of herbal antifungal medicines, the most frequently evaluated being TTO, which holds some promise. All herbal remedies require further investigation in clinical trials."
• PMID 10800248 - Tea tree oil : a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Structured abstract) - 2000 - "It is concluded that, so far, there is no compelling evidence to show that TTO is efficacious in any dermatological condition. However, in view of promising findings, TTO deserves to be investigated more closely."
• PMID 15824699 - Is tea tree oil effective at eradicating MRSA colonization? A review. - 2005 - "There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of tea tree oil in clinical practice for the eradication of MRSA colonisation." (Currently used in article.)

I can provide copies of any of the Cochrane articles. Outside of that, the best resource available is probably this one, Botanicals in Dermatology: an evidence-based review by Juliane Reuter et al., PMID 20509719. Zad68 19:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For the dermatological and fungal infection content, do you think we'd be better-off replacing what we've got with the Cochrane reviews? (executive summary: some promise; no firm evidence; more study needed) ?Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be a very well-researched area so an argument can be made that older meta-analyses may be used. The refrain of "no evidence of effectiveness strong enough to recommend but does look promising" seems to be repeated in the sources for years now. I'd really like to see what the full text of Reuter 2010 says, I suggest editors hit up their sourcing resources (mine's AWOL), or try WP:RX. Zad68 20:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I can access the Reuter paper. It doesn't add a great deal. Some snippets (the article doesn't actually mention TTO that much):

• "Some botanicals, especially Oregon grape root, tea tree oil, Saccharomyces, and perhaps basil may have the potential to replace standard chemical therapy in mild to moderate cases [of acne] because of their good efficacy and higher tolerability. Further valid, controlled clinical studies that also consider optimization of pharmaceutical preparations are needed."
• "the sensitizing potential of tea tree oil and oxidized monoterpenes should be taken into account when using tea tree oil for the treatment of acne."
• "Tea tree oil has become one of the most common contact allergens. Moreover, tea tree oil and lavender oil have recently been reported to cause prepubertal gynecomastia."
• "tea tree oil (M. alternifolia) is not only effective in the topical therapy of acne as mentioned in section 1. It functions as a topical antiseptic with an efficacy superior to that of phenol and displays broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity in vitro"
• "antimycotic or antibacterial treatment using synthetic compounds is still the treatment of choice".

The article also mentions this paper by Ernst as a source of information on adverse TTO effects, which might be worth a look ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

(add) this literature review also looks relevant. Unfortunately, it's in Swedish ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

To put this irritation issue in perspective, it's used for mild-moderate acne as a replacement for 5% benzoyl peroxide. VIRTUALLY EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT USES 5% BENZOYL PEROXIDE GETS SIGNIFICANT IRRITATION AND PEELING (often the skin adjusts, but still), but only one percent or so of 5% tea tree oil users get any irritation at all. And it works roughly the same (studies show varying effects). And about 30% of people are outright allergic to benzoyl peroxide and have a horrible time.Teapeat (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

And the 'prepubertal gynecomastia', that's the hormone thing, you know the thing that was debunked by the EU in 2008? The thing you just revert warred out of the lead? Three boys temporarily boobs grew when given TTO and lavender oil. The TTO is now in the clear, but the lavender oil has in vitro estrogenic effects and to my knowledge not been ruled out.Teapeat (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

These papers are virtually all out of date.Teapeat (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The Reuter paper post-dates the deliberations of the EU committee, and in fact that case is mentioned quite a lot. Saying "TTO is now in the clear" on the basis of one committee's opinion while dismissing other, later, scholarship would seem to be a rather reckless approach to sourcing. So trumpeting that "TTO is now in the clear" (as you effectively did with your proposed lede edits) isn't a great idea ... quite apart from anything else it would seem undue to mention this wrinkle in the debate in the lede here. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just because they wrote it afterwards doesn't mean that they read the EU paper. That's the problem with tertiary sources (and to a lesser extent secondary sources.) You get an echo-chamber type effect going on. The purpose of the sourcing guidelines of Wikipedia is to minimise these things so that Wikipedia approaches the actual truth on a subject (whatever that may be). The EU paper actually looked at this issue, specifically, is a reliable source, and drew a conclusion based on primary sources. It is by far and away the most reliable source on this point we have.Teapeat (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

You said it was out-of-date, I was pointing out it wasn't. You say the Reuter paper is tertiary source, but in WP:MEDRS terms it's a secondary - a literature review making it an "ideal source". You say the EU document is our best source, but is it even peer-reviewed? We can't be cavalier about sourcing. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even if it was published after 2008 it doesn't necessarily mean it isn't out of date, unless it references the EU scientific opinion, scientists don't spend their whole time reading all the literature that is published. Unless it's referenced, it's reasonable to assume that it's unread by that author.

While I don't know the precise nature of the EU publication process, whether it specifically involves peer review as it would for publication in a journal or not, the EU's paper certainly meets Wikipedia's criteria for being published by a reliable source.Teapeat (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but that doesn't mean other reliable sources can be just brushed aside. FWIW I think the text we have on this topic currently is about right. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I agree this is a poorly sourced article. For example the claim that " is toxic when taken by mouth" is supported by the quoted article on the American Cancer Society, that has no pointers to support it's claim. None of the references in that article appear to support this claim.Ziounclesi (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I added something from the National Capital Poison Center. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 13:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

That's better, at least it has one documented case, with authors, that I added a link to. I propose to remove the reference to the American Cancer Society in the heading, and leave it the Safety section, where it is clear that it is a volontary association with no medical obbligations.Ziounclesi (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

liver damage

Looking at the content from the National Pediculosis Association, they claim TTO can cause liver damage. They appear to be pretty much alone in making the claim and I propose we remove it. While the Association can be assumed, I think, to be a good source on pediculosis-related matters, we should do better for statements about subjects outside that area. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel that the medical organization website content without direct citations are all acceptable under wp:med, but we should try to replace these with secondary sources (also according to wp:med). Most noticeably the American Cancer Association webpage is relied on heavily, but does not have inline citations. The ACS website is probably an excellent resource for general information on cancer, but I doubt they have expertise on TTO, especially not to the extent of authors publishing in academic papers on the subject. Further they haven't updated their TTO information since 2008. There have been numerous studies conducted in the past 6 years which they could not have accounted for.Gsonnenf (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

recommended against

"recommended against"?

Sounds like an oxymoron to me. Well, it's bad writing anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.212.79 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

it can also be extracted from Melaleuca dissitiflora and Melaleuca linariifolia.[citation needed]

This can be cited using either the international standard ISO 4730 (2004) or the identical Australian standard AS 2782-2009 ("Oil of Melaleuca, Terpinen-4-ol type")which specifically lists M dissitiflora and M linariifolia. I don't know how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.6.217.140 (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Use on children / POV

Our source PMID 23099312 has

Another home remedy, tea tree oil, also is not recommended because topical application often leads to local irritation and inflammation, allergic contact eczema, and allergic contact dermatitis as a result of eucalyptol and limonene content (Therapeutic Research Center, 2011). The National Pediculosis Association (1997-2009) also strongly recommends avoiding tea tree oil because pure tea tree oil is contraindicated in neonates, infants, and pregnant women because of a lack of information regarding safety and efficacy.

and recommends "Avoid unproven remedies such as use of mayonnaise, petrolatum jelly, and tea tree oil". Yet Gsonnenf is repeatedly changing it to use just the view of the National Pediculosis Association (which we cover in the body). The previous text is a better summary. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The previous text makes the assertion "tea tree oil is not recommended for use in children" is not the view of the article. The article very clearly states that it doesn't recommending it in "general" because of lack knowledge about its side effects in neonates, infants, and pregnant women. Though doing further research on "The National Pediculosis Association", I'm unsure if that is source we should use. It doesn't "appear" to be an accredited medical organization or have a doctor associated with. It is a 501c3 non-profit, but any person can open one of those. Does anyone have any supporting information on this organization that makes it a relevant source?Gsonnenf (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a pediatrics journal. It says "topical application often leads to local irritation and inflammation, allergic contact eczema, and allergic contact dermatitis" and "Avoid unproven remedies". You've watered it down. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:47, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Looking even further into that article, I am rather concerned. Though the article is Pubmed, the author cites the following from the The National Pediculosis Association (http://www.headlice.org/faq/treatments/alternatives.htm) as evidence. As I mentioned earlier, the "National Pediculosis Association" doesn't seem to be an acredited medical establishment, nor even have a doctor associated with it.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not addressing the point that you are misrepresenting a source (which has the effect of downplaying the danger & uselessness of TTO). As for the NPA, if their view is good enough for a top-tier journal, it's good enough for us. WP:MEDASSESS cautions Wikipedia editors against becoming amateur peer-reviewers. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:10, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I've also looked at her second source, it is also not from a peer reviewed study but instead from the following (Commentary: Natroba (Spinosad) for the treatment of head lice. http://prescribersletter.therapeuticresearch.com/pl/Browse.aspx?cs=&s=PRL&pt=6&fpt=31&dd=270904&pb=PRL&searchid=45265197 )which is promotional material for an alternative. Though I have been a professional peer review for IEEE, not an amateur one, I would simply recommend we find a secondary source that is more focused on Tea Tree Oil, and can be linked back to quality primary sources. We DO have the ability to choose which secondary sources we use, and I think this one is a poor choice. It is by no means a systematic review of Tea Tree Oil ( editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews), nor does it link to one, instead, the Tea Tree Oil link is more like: "lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. Gsonnenf (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

A secondary paper in Pediatrics is about the best we have. It should not have been removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't even consider it a secondary source, as its citations are not primary sources, but instead opinions from articles without citations our any medical authority. A secondary source requires a primary source. She does not cite primary sources, nor secondary sources(as they do not have primary sources).Gsonnenf (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

2012 Review of current literature

I've gotten a hold of the TTO review of literature I was trying to get earlier. There are two papers I believe should be the up to date standards for this article. One is a 2012 article entitled "A review of applications of tea tree oil in dermatology", Nader Pazyar, Et Al. The other is 2005 paper already cited called "A review of the toxicity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil", K.A. Hammer, et al., The Pazyar is a review of most TTO papers published in the past 10 years. It establishes that TTO has been shown to be effective in treating Lice, Bacterial infections, Acne, Dandruff, and other infections. It also explains the mechanism of its effectiveness and cites numerous primary sources that establish these claims. The Hammer paper, a secondary source review of literature, establishes that TTO is safe to use externally, though as with any medicine, within certain guide lines.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I know some of the editors here believe that TTO is a "snake oil", despite nearly a hundred primary source pubmed articles establishing its effectiveness, but I'm hoping a gold standard secondary source that is a literature review of TTO primary sources will help you better understand that TTO has more in common with Willow Tree Bark (The initial source for aspirin), then fringe medications. The sources are currently on my talk page.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The Iranian paper was already discussed above. I thought it should be approached with caution. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:15, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

This Pubmed review of literature from the prestigious journal of dermatology is a a gold standard. Deciding it should be "approached with caution" because it has an Iranian scientist is against wiki policy and appears racist or xenophobic.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The problem as stated is that the journal is not prestigious (with a low impact factor), and that the article has not been much cited elsewhere, while making some exceptional claims (TTO as an anti-skin cancer agent, e.g.). It's not yet MEDLINE indexed either, apparently (though it should be in time). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 18:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The article is in in PUBMED, and it is published recently. What is important about it is it looks over a very large amount of studies regarding TTO. If you had read those primary sources as well, you would better understand there is nothing controversial, this is mostly just a review of all the recent TTO studies and reported results.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The National Pediculosis Association

The National Pediculosis Association is used in this article, but I don't believe it meets the standards for WP:MEDRS. I've looked somewhat extensively and they do not appear to be medically accredited nor have an accredited professional associated with them. I would propose we remove them from our citations, and replace them with opinions based on systematic reviews. Gsonnenf (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

They're fine for what we say. What systematic reviews did you have in mind?

They are not valid sources. So they are not fine.Gsonnenf (talk) 06:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think the Pediatrics article (which cites the NPA) is not "valid", take it to WP:RS/N. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I was saying anything that refers to the NPA article directly is invalid (unless we can demonstrate the NPA has medical authority). I am saying the pediatrics article as a whole seems to be ok, but its section on Tea Tree Oil is not a secondary source, but an opinion of a medical professional, which ranks lowest in the MEDRS hierarchy, thus shouldn't be used. Which of these are you contesting and which do you agree with?Gsonnenf (talk) 06:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying we accept and relay the information contained in a good article that has been peer-reviewed and published in a top-tier medical journal. We don't perform an amateur peer-review and take issue with the sources the authors use to (effectively) "re-write" the article to suit a POV. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 07:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about good sourcing, not point of view. I made 3 statements above:

• first remove contnet which directly cites the the NPA website (http://www.headlice.org/). I do not believe the NPA is a credible source, let alone a MEDRS source. Do you agree or disagree with this and why?

I disagree. It clearly is RS. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services considers them to be legit [[5]], and describes them as "a non-profit health... agency... including scientific advisors". Unless there is something to make us question this standing, that's enough right there to make the organisation itself, including its website, RS. Additionally the head to the organisation is a former university professor with numerous publications this field. The NPA is also regularly cited, favourably, in top tier medical and scientific journals and is a chosen partner of various research and public health programs. So the organisation clearly RS.

As for MEDRS, according to WP:MEDRS, any position statement from a nationally recognised expert body is MEDRS. This body certainly seems to be nationally recognised. Wouldn't you agree? It appears to be a direct correlate to the American Cancer Society, which has achieved consensus definition as MEDRS, and is even cited in this very article without any challenge. NPA has a smaller budget and is working with a lower profile disease, but I can't see any qualitiative difference between the organisations. So NPA appears to be the recognised expert body on head lice. That makes it MEDRS.

I can't find anything that is remotely RS to indicate that the NPA is anything but a specialist health agency utilising scientific advisors, equivalent to American Cancer Society. If you can find any reliable sources that call that NPA into question, then by all means present them so we can settle his matter of whether they are RS for future inclusions.

But regardless, an organisation doesn't need to be MEDRS for inclusion in a non-medical article, such as this one. Any organisation or individual is RS for their own opinions. Unless you dispute that it is the opinion of the NPA, then it can be included as such. Otherwise we are going to have to remove the claim that it can be used as a treatment altogether, since the source for that claim, the EU H&CPD is not MEDRS either. We are then going to have to remove any claims that a substance can be used a treatment from all articles until we can find a MEDRS. So, for example, we won't be able to cite that people use rhino horn as an aphrodisiac because that has only been cited in anthropological sources, none of which are MEDRS. This is clearly not conducive to encyclopaedic style and not the intent of the policy. The policy is intended to ensure that medical knowledge is accurate an up to date. It's not intended to stop inclusion of any and all information related to medical issues until it is evaluated by medical professionals.

• My second point was that the pediatrics article is a secondary source. WP:MEDASSESS requires us to "Assess evidence quality". It also gives guidelines for assessing the data quality. Following those guidelines, the guidelines wikipeida state we should evaluate, I have determined the statement is not based on " Systematic reviews of bodies of literature" or "RCT" but instead is "non-evidence-based expert opinion", which ranks the lowest on the evidence hierarchy. Doing this is not amateur peer review, it is WIKIPEDIA POLICY. Do you agree or disagree with this assessment?

First off, I don't have access to the full text of this article. But if you can show me the process you used to reach this assessment, with relevant quotes from the article, I can give you an opinion.

But even if you are correct, and it is "lowest on the evidence hierarchy", that doesn't make it not RS. The aim of WP:MEDRS is to ensure that the information is based on the best third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge. If this is the best or, as it appears, only current medical knowledge on this topic then it still warrants inclusion.

• The third thing I assert is that because the evidence is lowest on the hierarchy, it should not be included in the article summary and overall should be replaced with a secondary source that relies on RCT or reviews of literature. I am currently researching these, and they do exist, but they are behind a paywall so I will have to take a trip to university to read the entire article.Gsonnenf (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you have something that is higher tier, then of course that would trump this, but the fact that it is lowest tier does not in any way change its validity when their is no apparent dispute in the medical community. Until we can provide sources that dispute this conclusion then the "tier" of this source is irrelevant. Pending the provision of these alternative sources, it should stay. We can't just censor what is included in a RS because we disagree with it, or because we think there might be better sources that contradict it. Bring the better sources, then remove it if it is still warranted.Mark Marathon (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The NPA is a fine source, validated by its use in Pediatrics. The Pediatrics narrative review is good RS for our purposes, and is probably the best source we have for this topic. Since the practice of using TTO to treat head lice is just a fringey home-brew myth we could use pretty much anything to state the mainstream view (i.e. it's ineffective & potentially dangerous) using WP:PARITY. MEDRS is a guideline, NPOV is a policy. Of course, if there are better sources on this topic bring them forth! Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

The debate on NPA as a reliable source is continuing on the reliable source notice board ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard ). Based on that discussion I am currently recommending we remove it. The reasons are as follows: 1) npa.org lists no medical credentials, accreditation or medical professionals on own website. 2) The material on TTO is outdated. 3) Listing in an NIH service directory is not an indication of medical competence. 4) The person in charge of the website is Deborah Z. Altschuler, she does not appear to have a medical degree or any degree for that matter, nor does she list one in her own profile. 5) The NPA is a commerical entitiy has a conflict of interest as it is primarily concerned with selling its "patented" nitpicker comb ( keep in mind the NFL is also a 'non-profit' for reference).Gsonnenf (talk) 05:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

No, they're a good source cited in MEDRS, and reliable for their own view in any case. Altschuler has been an assistant professor and is well published (including in the NEJM). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

An "adjunct" assistant professor is not a credential. It simply means she was hired to present teaching material. Also MEDRS requires information to be from a " reputable MAJOR medical and scientific bodies". The examples are the NIH and the WHO. It also says even those are less authoritative then underlying medical literature.Gsonnenf (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

It's good then that we have high-quality medical literature citing the NPA. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Heyo Alex, after reading the additional discussion on the reliable source board, i don't think the NPA source source should be used and all the later editors seem to agree. I'm not that concerned about removing it quickly, so if you don't think we should keep it, I will leave it how it is and we can do an RFC.Gsonnenf (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Medical uses

I know from personal experience that tee tree oil will cure all sorts of skin fungi; especially ring worm and toe nail fungus. By direct application the oil will cure the most advanced case of toe nail fungus in a few weeks and ring worm in a few days. The infection will feel better immediately. Missaeagle (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would echo that. I tried some on a break-out on my leg that wouldn't go away for a few months no matter what I tried. Within like 30 mins. 50% gone. Amazing stuff! Stings a bit. CaribDigita (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tea tree oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130911225155/http://www.cancer.org:80/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/tea-tree-oil to http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/complementaryandalternativemedicine/herbsvitaminsandminerals/tea-tree-oil

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Medical Uses

It seems strange to have only three things listed under medical uses and all three be counter-indications. If there are no medical uses I would suggest changing the title of the section. I believe Medical Contraindications would be better. --MTHarden (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Buy a book. There are THOUSANDS of uses. Tea tree oil has been found effective on burns, which normally require debreding, a painful, tedious process. The use of tto eliminates the need for any debreeding, prevents fungal and bacterial infections, and promotes growth of new tissue while minimizing scarring. Since everything I say can be classed as OR, I suggest you visit some bookstores. Peer-reviewed studies are thin on the ground, but I understand they do exist in Germany, England, and probably Australia. Many medical practitioners are ignorant of the product, but others are beginning to recommend it cautiously, as big pharma has no profit incentive, and is therefore resiatant. Toxicity warnings are overblown, as there are many reports of treatment of humans and animals of such things as internal cysts using melaleuca capsules. Keep it away from your eyes, and off of paint and synthetics/rubber/plastic, as it is an extremely effective solvent (think of turpentine). Most any physician will tell you there is no "cure" for fever blisters, that they recur during times of stress, no matter how they are treated. I haven't had a fever blister in over 20 years, but nothing helped them until I tried tto.

Toxicity warnings will continue in our litiginous society, and well they should, as long as there are idiots who will try to use powerful chemicals to treat infants and toddlers. A chemistry instructor of my acquaintance at a nearby teaching hospital, who happens to be from Australia, issued a challenge: bring in unknown substances, he would identify. A nursing student brought in tto in unmarked bottle, which stumped him. He had no knowledge of tto, and adamantly denied it came from Australia.

I recently heard a warning on the radio about the dangers of ticks to hikers, hunters, outdoor enthusiasts. As a child I learned to remove a tick with a lit cigarette, to make it "let go and back out," as the mouth parts often remain in the wound and cause problems. Now the recommendation is tea tree oil, as many people have it on hand, and "ticks don't like it: they will let go." This was a PSA- type program, not promoting a product or a service. The times, they are achangin'. rags (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

While used for stuff their is little evidence to support us. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

AJTMH source and product development

Doc James: concerning your removal of this content about patented or approved products. The last paragraph of the 2016 AJTMH review assessed the absence of formal product development or approval of tea tree oil as either a registered product or approved drug, underscoring why tea tree oil persists as only a folk medicine: it cannot be financially supported for conventional product development. This seems appropriate information for the article, and is mentioned as the last sentence of the lead. --Zefr (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

You mean this "As costs for protecting intellectual property of tea tree oil products and investing in clinical research are high, and uses of the oil are commonly well-known, there are no patented or approved drugs from tea tree oil."?

Meh, that is not why their are no patented medications. Generics still get studied. And doing RCTs for something that is beneficial is not really that hard and not really that expensive. In fact studying something that is already in common use is easier as the first few layers of safety studies are not needed to the same degree. Expecially when you are dealing with a condition that is mostly a nuance like scabies and common like scabies.

You can have the answer by doing a 4 week RCT of 50 to 100 people. Add to this that the largest funder in the world remains the NIH and not pharma.

That bit about claiming alt med is being discriminated against is BS. Expecially when alt med is a multi billion dollar industry. Just managed to do an RCT of 120 individuals with no costs (other than some pizza) and lots of medical student time.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

We needed a sentence that synthesizes the last two paragraphs of the 2016 AJTMH review and justifies the last lead sentence. It seems justified to rewrite my edit rather than deleting it as a statement factually true: "As costs for protecting intellectual property of tea tree oil products and investing in clinical research are high, and uses of the oil are commonly well-known, there are no patented or approved drugs from tea tree oil." NIH funding won't get a product registered for commerce or approved as a drug. --Zefr (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

That teat tree oil is not a patented product or an approved drug is fact. Why this is the case is opinion.

2 well done RCTs that show benefit will get it approved by the FDA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Both points are true. Neither addresses why the statement offered and the AJTMH conclusion aren't valid to have in the article. At least, a credible review said it, and we should say it in a way that isn't BS. --Zefr (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

IMO we can use editorial judgement and leave out such a statement (which I consider biased). The Am J Trop Med Hyg is sort of a mid level journal.

Happy to ask for others opinions though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

agree w/ Doc James(statement does look bias)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see bias when it's an objective statement by the same authors from Australian clinical institutions who've provided reviews used in the article. Reinstating it with a small revision until other editors side with your view. --Zefr (talk) 00:40, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am puzzled by the counter-argument being provided - the source (the AJTMH article) is highly reliable for this purpose, and the general concept is notable and well-supported. I do think the statement needs refinement to reflect the relevant point being made in the AJTMH review, which seems (to me) captured in this sentence: "Without a patent or other similar means to protect the intellectual property associated with developing and using TTO to treat scabies, there is little commercial incentive for anyone to bear the risk and cost associated with product development and safety and efficacy testing.¹⁰³" (URL to ref 103 added by me). Perhaps a revised statement, e.g. "Whereas the availability and nonproprietary nature of tea tree oil would make it, if proved effective, particularly well-suited to a disease like scabies that affects poor people disproportionately, those same characteristics reduce corporate interest in its development and validation." — soupvector (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Am happy with User:soupvector wording. Medications are also developed by governments and NGOs and this reflects that it is just corporate interests that are reduced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

That works for me. I also think that the original was fine, because frankly non-profits and governments have very little interest in developing and validating a potential treatment when it is (a) already widely available, (b) generally accepted as having few side effects, and (c) one of multiple options for diseases that are usually successfully treated. It is unreasonable to think that a non-profit such as PATH (global health organization) would stop working on inexpensive vaccines for deadly diseases and instead try to spend millions of dollars on changing the paperwork status of tea tree oil. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

As resistance develops to current treatments for scabies and scabies affects 100s of million of people, yes I imagine someday an organization like PATH might be will look at tea tree oil to determine if it is effective. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tea tree oil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111031504/http://www.veterinarywatch.com/Abstract-tea-tree-oil.htm to http://www.veterinarywatch.com/Abstract-tea-tree-oil.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Research at UWA has shown that tea tree oil has broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity and anti-cancer effects

Hi, under "uses" the article says: "In a 2015 Cochrane systematic review, the only trial comparing it to placebo for acne found low-quality evidence of benefit". Well, I was just doing an Internet search and found this article from the University of Western Australia. What do you think? Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.115.221 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

That linked page has no trials at all. Alexbrn (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Misinformation about research

In many place this article incorrectly states that there is no medical benefit to tea tree oil, but there is extensive research that shows benefit. The Mayo clinic has listed some of them here: https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-tea-tree-oil/art-20364246 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kateharp (talk • contribs) 19:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

You need to read WP:MEDRS, that Mayo article does not meet our sourcing requirements. Thanks though. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 19:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC).

Huge bias against Homeopathy from Wikipedia owner/founder Jimmy Wales

See this study here, it's from 1990, and it proves that there is a beneficial effect in using tee tree oil, this article says it has none whatsoever which is incredibly wrong. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2145499?log$=activity Here, you can see how Jimmy has a total bias against homeopathy, and will do anything he can to stop positive reports on that, to suit a certain image and group of people, that all homeopathy is quack medicine, even if it's been proven otherwise. https://www.quora.com/q/ulkygpnwvypdiiow/Homeopathy-Oscillococcinum-in-particular

He's right. Wikipedia is a reality-based project. Follow decent sources (i.e. follow policy) and we shall do great work! Alexbrn (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not only that... the ingredients listed in Tea Tree oil, on this very page, mention "terpinen-4-ol" which on that page mentions the antibacterial and antifungal effects. This alone would make it useful for the so called things it's useless for such as athlete's foot, acne, et al. "Cochrane" reviews are not the be all and end all of systematic reviews and experiments, we have all heard of "Pub Med" and there is evidence there, yet it is not included despite this doesn't match up with the ingredients that are listed. Now were not saying that it's a kind of elixir for prevention of all diseases, but the fungal properties of acne and atheletes foot, this oil can be beneficial against it.

The strange thing about "homeopathy" is it's used for a number of meaning, for alternative medicine, and for horticulture base medicine. What were forgetting that there is still a part of medicine that still relies on horticulture or a plant based medicine. Take "St. Johns Wort", it is a serotonin uptaker, it works the same as Zoloft/Sertraline, yet one gets dismissed and called quack medicine, to some.

It would be like saying Willow Bark is a quack medicine, but Asprin works, despite the may be differences in it's whole compounds, it is essentially the same thing and you cannot suggest one is far supirior then another, especially nowadays were we have ways of making sure we know the dosages. Marccarran (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Page Hyper-Biased against TTO

1. Look at the intro for example. "..is toxic when taken orally" -- makes it sound like everyone is going around chugging the stuff. It is mostly used topically.
2. Every single section is "TTO is has no proven efficacy for...." Yet there are many studies to the contrary. The NIH NCCIH fact sheet on it says "A limited amount of research indicates that tea tree oil might be helpful for acne, nail fungus, and athlete’s foot." [6]

When I introduced edits in an aim for NPOV, they were quickly reverted. Afartrip (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2018 (UTC)afartrip

So far as I can see we have good sources and are reflecting them faithfully. Even the NCCIH source has the toxicity warning in bold type. Are there some WP:MEDRS we missing? Ripping all criticism out of the lede is really not a good way to proceed here. Alexbrn (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

We don't need to rip ALL criticism out of the lead, but it is written in a ridiculously negative and poor way. I shall have a go at tidying it up. Be aware that it WAS used by Australian Aboriginal people for millennia. They had no written language, which fits poorly with our demands for written sources. It is quite popular among other modern Australians for various purposes. Modern western medicine might just still be catching up. HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources seem to be saying its supposed benefits in fact turned out to be an illusion. We reflect that. What would be welcome is some more content on the non-health aspects of TTO. Alexbrn (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I get the feeling you just ignored everything I wrote in my comment. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Go with the sources. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring what I wrote about sourcing? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@HiLo48: It's hard to react to your (unupported) assertion that this "WAS" (capitals) used "for millennia", by "Australian Aboriginal people". Primitive peoples all over the globe used to use loads of useless treatments, and human health was in a rough state accordingly – that's a truism. What text and what source are you proposing? this is WP:NOTAFORUM. Alexbrn (talk) 08:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

There is no evidence the Australian Aboriginal people were either primitive or in poor health when European contact occurred. In fact, European contact had a massively negative effect on their health. I don't want to turn this into a forum, but I feel I am reading uninformed nonsense and prejudice from closed minds here. HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Once again is any actual text on TTO proposed based on any source? This is getting disruptive. Alexbrn (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Editors "responding" to my comments with no regard to what I have actually said is very disruptive. This page is for discussion, not for absolute statements, and total dependence on selected policies. And despite the implication in the notice you stuck on my Talk page that I am somehow promoting alternative medicine, that could not be further from the truth. I have no barrow to push here. I just agreed with another editor that the article was ridiculously negative about this stuff, for less than perfect reasons. I tried to help make it better. The article is now better, but still a long way from ideal. But if you're going to play dirty, I will walk away. (Which is presumably what you want.) HiLo48 (talk) 09:14, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

I found this page overly negative as well. This citation clearly states its benefits-https://web.archive.org/web/20180927165036/https://agrifutures.infoservices.com.au/downloads/07-143, and yet it seems that only the negative sources have been picked. 16 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:645:8302:5449:31AF:8989:D41:1E27 (talk)

Yeah well, an industry advocacy group is going to say positive things, isn't it? It is not a reliable source. There are a bunch of vested interests trying to promote this stuff as useful; high-quality independent assessments find it's hardly useful for anything. The problem you have is not with the article, it's with reality (which the article accurately reflects). Alexbrn (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree it appear hyper-bias against TTO. We used to have a very good discussion on the positive and negative aspects of Tea Tree Oil. The positive aspects that previously appeared in the article (e.g. effective against MRSA) have been edited out. This is particularly concerning. Wikipedia is suppose to be both informative and neutral POV. Gsonnenf (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I have been on Wikipedia since almost the beginning and this is about the most biased page I have read on Wikipedia. Wikipedia used to be a source of unbiased information but a very small number of people biased against TTO, most probably because of a personal incident, are using Wikipedia to further their unnatural biases. Sad. Skapur (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

2015 article was much more informative and NPOV compared to current article.

Hello, to anyone wanting to bring this article into NPOV, i would suggest looking at the older version from 2015 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tea_tree_oil&oldid=666555186 ) when it was NPOV and consistent with WP:MED. (at least according to most authors). It appears to have degraded quite a bit since then. Gsonnenf (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Certainly a lot of old/weak sources. Is there anything recent on TTO, or has the scientific world simply concluded it is a largely useless substance and moved on? As always, sources are all. Alexbrn (talk) 09:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Oh I remember you Alexbrn. You were the one who was always trying removing those sources, but the rest of the community kept them in. I guess we all got busy and couldn't defend the NPOV anymore. I will commend you for your tenacity though, you sure stuck it out when everyone else got exhausted.Gsonnenf (talk) 07:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the entirety of the talk page is justified response regarding NPOV, I have added the NPOV tag. Lets see what we can do about bringing back the many people who have intermittently contributed through out the past years.Gsonnenf (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a whiff of Danth's Law about how you remember your previous edits. Since then, it looks like the article's many editors have done a good job to update it (though the page lacks material on history, market, industrial process and commercialization). Zefr in particular has cleaned up the biomedical content. If you have specific suggestions, please make them – but we need to be wary of badge-of-shame tagging. Alexbrn (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen an article where the sources have been more systematically cherry picked, nor where the lead is more marginally written. GliderMaven (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have specific suggestions based on sources/NPOV? The NPOV guidance says that it can be removed if "It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." — soupvector (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Note that since 2013 there has been quite a bit of discussion at WT:MED wrt TTO:

• October 2013
• June 2016
• August 2018
• December 2017

So it's not as if there hasn't been eyes on this content. I am surprised we are still using Mayo Clinic as a source. In general it seems very little research is being done any more, and little to no utility has been found. We do however know it's toxic, risks allergic reactions & hormone disruption. On this last point it's probably noting what the Endocrine Society say.[7] We should also say something about environmental safety. Alexbrn (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It was improper for the NPOV tag to be removed. Calling the addition of the tag a "drive by", when it was added by an long time author is also improper. I have looked at the links above posted by alexbrn. The links contain alexbrn's post. I did not see anyone agree with his removals of sources. In one post, Doc James called the removals disruptive. This seems like a 5 year case of WP:OWN. Lets try to get some more authors involved to fix the article. If alexbrn can be accepting of other authors, perhaps take a WP:BREAK from the article for several months, I'm sure more authors could get involved without feeling pushed out. Gsonnenf (talk) 08:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

It is quite right to remove drive-by tags which are placed without specific reasoning being given, per the template instructions. So far as I can see, Doc James was complaining about "disruptive" edits here - and the complaint was about the addition of unreliable sources. If you are complaining about specific edits, then give some diffs. So far as I can see we have decent sourcing in this article and there is little or no recent new evidence that we can usefully use. If you have specific suggestions, then make them. Alexbrn (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

(Add) Well blow me down! Not sooner do I say there's nothing recent than I see some new research has appeared in the last few days: https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50403. I have added it to the article (it is not WP:MEDRS, but is okay for poisoning statistics which is what it's about). Alexbrn (talk) 09:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is extremely biased evidenced by the fact that one editor (Alexbrn) is dominating the edits and is deliberately biasing this article by editing it to further the editor’s own personal point of view. The sad fact is that this editor does not even realize how biased this article has become. Cherry picking references to further your own biased POV and deleting any conflicting POV that would make the article more neutral is bad editing. Skapur (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Since the amount of hand waving is now reaching fever pitch, to repeat:

• If you have problems with a specific edit, give a diff of it
• If you have problems with a user, take it to WP:AIN, discussing users here is WP:DE and can lead to sanctions
• If you have problems with sources/content, be specific.

Vague whingeing about "it's biased" is of no use, and does not help us improve the article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

If anyone is being disruptive it is the editor who is refusing to WP:Listen to everyone else and insists that their personal POV prevail. Also, I can not find the reference in WP:DE that prohibits disruptive editors from being discussed first in the talk page before being taken to WP:AIN, in fact it discussion in the talk page is encouraged. Skapur (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:FOC. We don't do "badge of shame" tagging. You have tagged the entire article (not just any section) for POV, so you now need to explain why "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor". Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(Add) * crickets * – Skapur where are your specific actionable proposals? Alexbrn (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with removal of NPOV tag; complainant has offered no evidence-based suggestions for content improvement. — soupvector (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Bad link in section on Composition

In the Composition table, the text "terpinolene" is linked to the article on terpenines. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on terpinolene, apparently. Is it OK to just remove the link from the text in the table? Wscholine (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)